The Royals

[Scam]

They don't do ANYTHING that other statesmen(states-persons) do in their day-to-day work

lol she does way more towards worthy causes than statesmen/women do. I'd wager a good half of her engagements are for charities and good causes. She's in a different league to politicians when it comes to actually doing good. Quick Google: https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2012/jun/11/queen-charitable-support

I think people rightfully have an issue paying this £2.4 million out.

Yet they only care because it is thrust in their faces by elements of the media. How does £2.4m compare to £26.7bn that taxpayers pay towards subsidies and housing benefit every year for private landlords? Oh didn't know about that? Didn't care as much?

 

[GGizmo]

Yet they only care because it is thrust in their faces by elements of the media. How does £2.4m compare to £26.7bn that taxpayers pay towards subsidies and housing benefit every year for private landlords? Oh didn't know about that? Didn't care as much?

Two wrongs don't make it right.

The housing benefit system and it going to private landlords is how the system as been setup. I noticed you added "as much" on to the don't care line. Because you know people do care and would like that changed too.

How many royals do you want to pay for? Did you disagree when the Queen cut back on the spending for the 'lesser' royals?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

My favourite royals are Kate and Megan.

Wow, mine too!

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

What do you mean "it's not in fact BS about the Crown Estate financials"?
It's not been explained in this thread either, there's been some facts barely skimmed over. You gave the impression you had great in depth knowledge on the subject but now you're saying JFGI and it's been explained, it hasn't really.
I'd like to see this imparted wisdom you claim to be possessor of.

Like I have said, it's been discussed over and over on OCUK. Go research it. I never claimed to be in possession of all the in depth knowledge, it's just basic common sense. Any 5 year old could google and find the right information rather than frothing about how the Royals are evil mastermind parasites determined to take all our money.

 

[Teh_Next]

Like I have said, it's been discussed over and over on OCUK. Go research it. I never claimed to be in possession of all the in depth knowledge, it's just basic common sense. Any 5 year old could google and find the right information rather than frothing about how the Royals are evil mastermind parasites determined to take all our money.

I can research till Kingdom Come and it's still up for debate, if you want be proven correct then hit us with the facts oh wise one. Then I doubt with such a silly attitude as this...

I would explain it to you, but fear you're too far brainwashed to understand.

I'm not brainwashed, I'm very open to persuasive argument, so come on hit us with your expertise. Saying it's been discussed doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Diddums]

Wow, mine too!

Which one though? I reckon that Kate is a nasty piece of work in the sack. She probably loves a bit of the old strap on action.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Which one though? I reckon that Kate is a nasty piece of work in the sack. She probably loves a bit of the old strap on action.

Megan until she starts with her feminist spiel then I'd switch to Kate!

 

[Diddums]

Megan until she starts with her feminist spiel then I'd switch to Kate!

Meg doesn't do it for me. At all. He should've married Donna, clearly drew the short straw there.

 

[FoxEye]

It’s a shame you feel the need to start by saying you are as patriotic as the next person when you think that we should become a republic. The royal family are not our country and thinking they are an anachronism does not make you unpatriotic.

Talking of anachronisms... have you seen the pomp and ceremony that MPs still engage in? I think they must enjoy pretending that we are still living in the 19th century and Britain still has an empire.

One thing that *does* bother me - whether or not you like the Queen - is forcing our MPs to swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen. To my mind, that is wrong. Utterly wrong. They should swear to serve the people honestly and with compassion, not swear an oath to the Queen.

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

I can research till Kingdom Come and it's still up for debate, if you want be proven correct then hit us with the facts oh wise one. Then I doubt with such a silly attitude as this...



I'm not brainwashed, I'm very open to persuasive argument, so come on hit us with your expertise. Saying it's been discussed doesn't cut the mustard.

Not going to even entertain you, you're clearly just looking for an argument. It wasn't even you I called brainwashed, you quoted my message which was clearly for someone else just so you could take offence. Like I said, I never claimed to know it all, I just used common sense. Read the posts properly before getting on your high horse.

I'm out of this convo', carry on with your deluded vision that the Queen and Royal family are some evil lizard overlords or whatever. Enjoy.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Meg doesn't do it for me. At all. He should've married Donna, clearly drew the short straw there.

I dunno, if we are choosing from the cast then I'd have to go with Scottie.

 

[Diddums]

I dunno, if we are choosing from the cast then I'd have to go with Scottie.

WHAT??????:


I heard a splash. Did you hear a splash? It was the sound of your credibility landing in the toilet.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

WHAT??????:


I heard a splash. Did you hear a splash? It was the sound of your credibility landing in the toilet.

Or maybe Katrina actually, its like being in a toy shop as a kid

 

[Werewolf]

Is this thread really about the £2.4 million we've just paid to renovate prince harry and meghans place?

I'm not anti-Monarchy, and I supported the Queens efforts years ago to cut down on the royal budget by cutting expenses to the lesser royals. So in that vein when does Harry move in to that group too? Since William and Kate had their 3 children then for all intents and purposes Harry's royal profile will slowly fade in to the background as the 3 children become adults. He should have paid it from his own money, especially when the US tax system breathing down their necks threatening to open the royal books themselves. Harry and Meghan should have been separating their accounts by now.

I think people rightfully have an issue paying this £2.4 million out.

You mean the 2.4 million spent to maintain valuable properties? (they don't just replace things like structural timbers because someone is moving in and they don't like the old wood).

The work that the crown estate paid for on those properties is basically the equivalent to what your council would pay if work was needed on properties it owned and was about to be let out- the only difference being that because the properties in question were listed and fairly high end they had to do the work in a style that matched, rather than getting Bob's Builders in to use stuff from Wickes and Homebase.

From what I've read it sounded like the property was in serious need of refurbishment/structural work before anyone could use it again, and they took the chance to also restore them to something closer to the original style at the same time as modernising the utilities.
Which means that the 2.4 million would have been spent regardless of who was going to use the property, as it's either spend the money to keep it in good shape or let it fall down/get worse and cost more to fix up in the future (which is part of the reason things like various of the palaces and the HOP are costing so much*).

From my understanding the couple paid for any works above that standard restoration themselves, which is basically what you would get if someone was about to move into any luxury apartments or properties as a long term rental and the property was in the process of major works and the landlord was open to the customisation.


*IIRC the government has dithered over the cost of repairs and routine maintainance to the houses of parliament for so long that the damage has got considerably worse as things like leaks that at one point could have been fixed with just a new roof section have caused damage to the underlying structure, or things like damaged plasterwork has allowed water ingress resulting in additional damage.

 

[Cryogenic]

You mean the 2.4 million spent to maintain valuable properties? (they don't just replace things like structural timbers because someone is moving in and they don't like the old wood).

The work that the crown estate paid for on those properties is basically the equivalent to what your council would pay if work was needed on properties it owned and was about to be let out- the only difference being that because the properties in question were listed and fairly high end they had to do the work in a style that matched, rather than getting Bob's Builders in to use stuff from Wickes and Homebase.

From what I've read it sounded like the property was in serious need of refurbishment/structural work before anyone could use it again, and they took the chance to also restore them to something closer to the original style at the same time as modernising the utilities.
Which means that the 2.4 million would have been spent regardless of who was going to use the property, as it's either spend the money to keep it in good shape or let it fall down/get worse and cost more to fix up in the future (which is part of the reason things like various of the palaces and the HOP are costing so much*).

From my understanding the couple paid for any works above that standard restoration themselves, which is basically what you would get if someone was about to move into any luxury apartments or properties as a long term rental and the property was in the process of major works and the landlord was open to the customisation.


*IIRC the government has dithered over the cost of repairs and routine maintainance to the houses of parliament for so long that the damage has got considerably worse as things like leaks that at one point could have been fixed with just a new roof section have caused damage to the underlying structure, or things like damaged plasterwork has allowed water ingress resulting in additional damage.

Wolf mate, if someone said to you - due to the cost of inflation and new Royal members, we need to put your tax up by 3% to cover the repairs on private crown properties. What would your first instinct be - yes of course? If that's the case, then go right ahead and ask your boss for a rise, but why drag everyone else into this farce?

Would it not be better for it to be an optional payment. i.e. royalists pay more tax? This would be a fairer system as they can obviously afford it. Those opted out could chose to contribute to a local community project of their choice, or to support their own family.

 

[The_Abyss]

Wolf mate, if someone said to you - due to the cost of inflation and new Royal members, we need to put your tax up by 3% to cover the repairs on private crown properties. What would your first instinct be - yes of course? If that's the case, then go right ahead and ask your boss for a rise, but why drag everyone else into this farce?

Would it not be better for it to be an optional payment. i.e. royalists pay more tax? This would be a fairer system as they can obviously afford it. Those opted out could chose to contribute to a local community project of their choice, or to support their own family.

Mt first instinct was to check the data of the sweeping generalisation. You don't specify which tax, but for the purposes of simplicity I'll assume that you're referring to income tax. In which case, a 3% increase to income tax would raise around £18bn.

Just to put things into perspective rather than have dramatisation for effect. I'm sure you can do the maths and calculate what increase in tax is needed to make your example more accurate.

But while I'm here, is there anything else you'd like to be able to opt out of paying tax for?

Also, if there are indeed benefits to the royal family, how do we opt you out of those? Perhaps increase your income tax to compensate?

Devil's advocate.

 

[Angilion]

Before I begin, let me make clear that I am as patriotic as the the next person, though I do feel maybe like the hit movie Gladiator starring Russell Crowe, that we should now consider becoming a republic on the following points:

1. Anyone can join the Royal Family, there does not seem to be an application process or criteria to become something akin to a 'living God'?

A member of the the royal family is not seen as being akin to a living god, so that point is invalid.

2. Princess Diana (god bless her soul) was a lovely lady in public, but enjoyed many relationships whilst still married to the future heir - should she simply not have resigned her post?

Yes, if she did so. Did she? I don't know.

3. Does all the land that I live on belong to the queen in my country, if so, is this the same as Saudia Arabia? Do we need reform so families can own and farm their own lands?

No, since that's already the case.

4. According to wiki, the RF are self funding through tourism, and have billions in assets. Is it fair a cleaner should subsidise this in tax (no matter how small)?

Your sources are wrong. Nobody is subsidising the royal family through tax. Quite the opposite - the monarch voluntarily vastly overpays tax and the entire sovereign grant is paid entirely from part of that voluntary over-payment. It's 15% - the country pockets the remaining 85%. The tourism money is an added benefit. It's true that some tourism would remain if we became a republic, but it would be less. Former royal residences have tourism value. Current royal residences have more. The association with a real, current, existing monarchy adds tourism value. Any sizable company could build something more impressive than Buckingham palace, for example. But it wouldn't have a real monarch in it. Actors could do a trooping of the colour, but they wouldn't be a real monarch. The reality aspect of it adds tourism value. But even without tourism and even ignoring the diplomacy and publicity aspects and considering only immediate hard currency, the monarchy is a net benefit to the country simply from taxation. No other wealthy person or organisation chooses to massively overpay on tax. On top of that, what would the country save by becoming a republic anyway? The expenses of having a head of state would still exist and would still have to be paid.

Apologies if I cause offence to anyone, as I said, I am not unpatriotic, just living in modern times where things are no longer decided by swords, castles, and marching armies.

They are still decided by diplomacy and money and thr royal family is a net benefit on both counts. In addition to that, I think that retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage matters.[/quote]

 

[MissChief]

This should be in Speakers corner IMO.

I like the Royals, but I sense that's because I see the value they bring to the UK and how the Crown Estates work. For relevance here's the Wiki on it. If you read it you'll see that the Crown Estates are a net PRODUCER of income for the treasury with around 25% of it being given back as The Civil List. Even the Buck palace renovations have been funded buy an increase in the Civil List, derived from income from the Crown Estates. They don't 'take taxpayers money' at all.

 

[Cryogenic]

A member of the the royal family is not seen as being akin to a living god, so that point is invalid.

My question: Would you bow to a Royal member who joined 1 hour ago? If not, why not?

Head of state = current elected prime minister & standard expenses for the elected duty

Not disputing the income side.

"I think that retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage matters."

This has to be a wind up, whilst previous generations lived in castles marrying into each others families with court jesters to keep them entertained. Your/my lineage was likely ploughing the field and living in a straw hut when men on horseback came to collect 'land tax' in coins. Not sure which part you want to remember about this exactly other than the threat of the gallows?

 

[Cryogenic]

This should be in Speakers corner IMO.

I like the Royals, but I sense that's because I see the value they bring to the UK and how the Crown Estates work. For relevance here's the Wiki on it. If you read it you'll see that the Crown Estates are a net PRODUCER of income for the treasury with around 25% of it being given back as The Civil List. Even the Buck palace renovations have been funded buy an increase in the Civil List, derived from income from the Crown Estates. They don't 'take taxpayers money' at all.

Agreed about SC.